French Jewish Historian Sued Over ‘Far-Right Rhetoric’ Against Muslims

The use of accusations of Islamophobia to enforce Caliphater blasphemy codes and block the expression of any criticism of Muslims in Europe has long been acknowledged. The most disturbing trend in this verbal warfare is to criminalize Islamophobia as “hate speech.” Today in France we have a good example of this problem.

French Jewish Historian Sued Over ‘Far-Right Rhetoric’ Against Muslims

(JTA) — One of the world’s leading historians on the Jewish communities in Arab countries is being prosecuted in France for alleged hate speech against Muslims.

The Morocco-born French-Jewish scholar Georges Bensoussan, 64, is due to appear next month before a Paris criminal court over a complaint filed against him for incitement to racial hatred by the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, the group recently announced on its website.

Note that Bensoussan is the author of the first book on the new Anti-Semitism of the 21st century, Les territoires perdus de la République (2002), in English, The Lost Territories of the Republic. It chronicled the way in which a vicious anti-Semitic (and anti-French) hate speech had taken over many schools in France, especially in the banlieues (Zones Urbaines Sensibles). He published it under the protective pseudonym of Emmanuel Brenner.

The complaint, which leading French scholars dismissed as attempt at “intimidation” in a statement Friday, was over remarks about anti-Semitism by Muslims that Bensoussan, author of a definitive 2012 work entitled “Jews in Arab Lands,” made last year during an interview aired by the France Culture radio station, the Collective said.

The Collective based its complaint on two remarks by Bensoussan.

« Aujourd’hui nous sommes en présence d’un autre peuple au sein de la nation française, qui fait régresser un certain nombre de valeurs démocratiques qui nous ont portés….».

“Today, we are witnessing a different people in the midst of the French nation, who have a regressive effect on a certain number of democratic values to which we adhere…” read the first quote flagged.

From an empirical point of view, this is simple observation. Anyone who is familiar with the behavior of French Muslims in these “zones urbaines sensibles” knows the degree to which they show open contempt for democratic principles and norms: shame-murders, butchering teachers in front of the class, rapacious looting, exclusion of women from public places, taking over public space (main roads) for prayer, murders, rapes and assaults. And all of this, while it might have appeared before, became much more pronounced in the 21st century.
You can argue these are not all French Muslims. But you cannot argue that the culture their deeds reflect, is merely marginal to the French Muslim community. The voice of a violent, triumphalist, Muslim rap holds a place of power within that community, especially among youth, and in that world, Muhammad Merah, who filmed himself gunning down little Jewish children outside a school in Toulouse, is a hero. He is a “real man,” like Usama.

And the best that the “moderate” Muslim population can muster, is cry that this is not “us,” not real “Islam.” And yet, right now, it’s the only Islam that seems to have visible resonance within the Umma. In terms of genuinely progressive movements within Islam, shaping a religiosity that can “live with” infidels, we have yet to see anything substantive – on the contrary, any genuinely moderate movement or individual is blasted as an enemy of Islam (and by the proleptic dhimmi, as an Islamophobe). Basically the tolerant are the less or non-observant Muslims, and the more devout Muslims become, the less compatible with coexistence they become. Where are the passionate, compassionate Muslims?
The second quote cited read: “This visceral anti-Semitism proven by the Fondapol survey by Dominique Reynié last year cannot remain under a cover of silence.” Conducted in 2014 among 1,580 French respondents, of whom one third were Muslim, the survey found that they were two times and even three times more anti-Jewish than French people as a whole.

This is, of course, one of the great problems for all of Europe. See Gunther Jinkeli, European Muslim Antisemitism: Why Young Urban Males Say They Don’t Like Jews.

“Besides, with the animosity toward the French nation, there will be no integration as long as we will not be rid of this ancestral anti-Semitism that is kept secret (…) as an Algerian sociologist, Smain Laacher, very bravely said in a film that will be aired on France 3, ‘it’s disgraceful to keep in place this taboo, knowing that in Arab families in France and beyond everybody knows but will not say that anti-Semitism is transmitted with mother’s milk,” the quote continued.

A friend who was raised in Pakistan tried to tell some liberal Jews that she was raised to be an anti-Semite, and their response was “We don’t believe you.” I thought their response was just LCE. Maybe it’s a fear that if they believe it and – Allah (PBUH) forbid – they repeat it, they’ll end up like Georges.

At least 12 people have been murdered in three attacks by suspected Jihadists from France on Jewish targets in that country and in Belgium since 2012.

The anti-Islamophobia collective called Bensoussan’s statements “dangerous and in line with far-right rhetoric” targeting Muslims.

So “far-right” is a criminal term, and those who decide what’s “right” are people who probably place themselves on the “left center” when they’re on the far “left.” What’s the danger here? Islamophobia or Islamo-fascism imposed and policed by proleptic dhimmi on the left trying to appease triumphalist Muslims.

The language of the law, that’s used extensively to harass people critical of Muslims (like Christine Tasin, présidente de Résistance Républicaine) runs as follows:

le délit d’incitation à la discrimination, à la haine, ou à la violence à l’égard d’une personne ou d’un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée

the crime of inciting to discrimination, hatred or violence in respect to a person or group of people because of their origin or belonging or not belonging to an ethnicity, nation, race or specific religion.

The language here is broadly inclusive and extremely amorphous: “incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence…” What’s the borderline between dislike and hatred, between treating someone with suspicion – the French are normally proud of their méfiance – and discrimination (presumably they mean “prejudice” – without the ability to discriminate, no creature can survive). And with the exception of incitement to violence, since when are these actionable crimes?

But three prominent French writers and historians — Jacques Tarnero, Yves Ternon and Michel Zaoui – disputed the allegations, calling the complaint against Bensoussan “scandalous.”

The cautions taken against Bensoussan “are part of a strategy of intimidation intended to censure any lucid statement, any form of criticism,” they wrote in a statement they published online last week.

Precisely. This is designed to stop any criticism of Islam, even criticism that does no more than, as did the film Fitnacite what Muslims themselves say.

The Collective Against Islamophobia in France wrote in its statement that Paris prosecutors initiated the prosecution against Bensoussan “in light of the gravity of his remarks.” However, hate-speech indictments are “quasi-automatic” in France when police receive complaints of defamation, according to the L’Express news website.

This is not healthy.

The case advances. To contribute money to Ben Soussan’s defense, go here.

2 Responses to French Jewish Historian Sued Over ‘Far-Right Rhetoric’ Against Muslims

  1. Russell Grayson, Esq. says:

    This is the danger of bogus, repugnant “Hate Speech” laws. A classic example of good intentions gone awry due to the PC Nanny State believing it can legislate against free speech, instead of allowing the best disinfectant–Sunlight–to dispose of lies, defamatory inventions, and bigotry in the marketplace of ideas. Truth should be an absolute defense.

  2. Martin J. Malliet says:

    This is indeed a fascinating case that shows how crazy things have gotten in France. (I put some things together on my facebook page.)

    Georges Bensoussan, a French Jewish historian and activist against islamism (with quite some credentials in this field), in a debate on the radio (high-brow France-Culture almost nobody listens to) explains how widespread antisemitism in the French Muslim community makes it vulnerable to the islamists’ attempts to set it up against French society.

    He then is accused of incitement to hatred against the Muslim community by professional anti-racism organisations, with the lead being taken by the CCIF (against islamophobia). Other anti-racist organisations join in, among which the venerable old LICRA (against racism and anti-semitism) with its star witness Mohamed Sifaoui, an Algerian journalist in France who is a very outspoken critic of islamism and at the same time very much maligned by the CCIF for being former PM Manuel Valls’s sidekick and by the CCIF’s followers for being a ‘zionist agent’, who explains his testimony against Bensoussan with the wish not to leave the defense of the French Muslims entirely to the CCIF.

    Apart maybe from the CCIF, nobody seems to be thinking about the sketch Dieudonné is going to make on Bensoussan, who is also associated with the French Shoah memorial, if he is ever found guilty by the court of incitement to hatred against Muslims, as the public prosecutor demands (with a fine of €1.500), after debates at the trial that lasted for 12 hours (till 1h30 in the morning). The verdict will be pronounced on the 7th of March.

    The judge, who is Mme Siredey-Garnier, in the meantime has published a sort of opinion piece in the ‘Gazette du Palais’ in which she contrasts the 12-hour long Bensoussan trial with other hearings where she has to decide on the fate of some 23 illegal immigrants in about the same amount of time. The idea she tries to put forward seems to be that the Bensoussan trial is merely about a symbolic matter whereas the other cases are about real lives. But she reminds herself of the trials of Flaubert, Zola, Baudelaire and Charlie, which were also held before the same tribunal (17me chambre), and promises to do her duty by giving every case the attention it deserves.

    Her piece inspired me to write a last message in support of Georges Bensoussan that I secretly hope will come to her attention (in French) and that on my part is meant as a simple plea for sanity: “Pour ma part, j’espère seulement que le juge jouera pleinement son rôle de juge, et admettra d’autres considérations que celles introduites par les parties avant d’arriver à une conclusion. Comme par exemple le fait qu’il s’agissait d’un débat contradictoire à la radio, et que dans ce cas on ne peut attendre de personne qu’il pèse vraiment tous ses mots. Que Georges Bensoussan est certes responsable de sa parole, mais qu’il ne peut être tenu responsable de toutes les interprétations malveillantes que d’autres veulent en faire. En d’autres mots, que le juge se rend compte que devant un tribunal révolutionnaire Georges Bensoussan serait facilement condamné pour incitation à la haine raciale. Mais qu’il décide ensuite que devant le tribunal d’un état de droit comme la RF il ne le mérite aucunement. Et qu’il condamne chacune des parties civiles à €10.000 de dommages pour procédure abusive, harcèlement et atteinte à la réputation de Georges Bensoussan.”

    http://www.marianne.net/agora-proces-bensoussan-reponse-mohamed-sifaoui-100249704.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *